Airport staff 'exposed woman's breasts, laughed'

[Listen_to_This]

Dogs sniffs would have the same effect.
Now please indicate where these aggresove pat-downs have actually found the materials.

Dog sniffs would not have the same effect. Dogs are only trained to find a limited number of things.

While it is not relevant to legality of these searches, here is story about some stuff the new procedures have found (unfortunately the TSA does release their finding to me so I don’t know everything they have found):

articles.cnn.com/2010-04-01/travel/airport.body.scanners_1_detection-capabilities-machines-christmas-day-incident?_s=PM:TRAVEL

I think you are being purposely obtuse if you think a pat down could not find a plastic knife (or that a dog sniff could, since dogs are not trained to find plastic).

 

[Listen_to_This]

Correction, you care about the legalities, not the logic.

Tell me, is the rest of your morality dictated by legalese?

Well, the life of the law is experience, not logic.

The question of whether the new procedures violate the 4th amendment is a legal question, not a moral question.

 

[vz71]

Dog sniffs would not have the same effect. Dogs are only trained to find a limited number of things.

Right. Dogs could well be trained for any number of things.
And it is the knowledge that we do not know the full range the dog may be searching for that means that it could ‘deter’ as you put it.

I think you are being purposely obtuse if you think a pat down could not find a plastic knife (or that a dog sniff could, since dogs are not trained to find plastic).

Not at all. As somone skilled with the law, you should know better then to draw conclusions like that.
Until you can demonstrate that these aggresive pat-downs are in fact finding these materials, you cannot use that particular restriction as a problem for other search techniques.

 

[vz71]

Well, the life of the law is experience, not logic.

The question of whether the new procedures violate the 4th amendment is a legal question, not a moral question.

You are skilled at evasion.
Nevertheless, your attempt to avoid the question was too obvious.

Tell me, is the rest of your morality dictated by legalese?

 

[Listen_to_This]

You are skilled at evasion.
Nevertheless, your attempt to avoid the question was too obvious.

Tell me, is the rest of your morality dictated by legalese?

It is an unfair question. None of my morality is dictated by legalese.

I wonder why you trying to turn this into a discussion of my personal morality? Maybe because your legal arguments are totally baseless.

Hey, why don’t you tell us how a district attorney can bring a case based on an alleged constitutional violation?

 

[vz71]

It is an unfair question. None of my morality is dictated by legalese.

Indeed some of it must be.
In conversations in which the right or wrong of a matter is being discussed, you are responding with court cases.
At least in this particular, you are more concerned with the legality then the logic.

I wonder why you trying to turn this into a discussion of my personal morality? Maybe because your legal arguments are totally baseless.

Actually, I was just curious.
I have not seen an argument of yours yet that dealt with the logic instead of the court cases.

Hey, why don’t you tell us how a district attorney can bring a case based on an alleged constitutional violation?

I let that particular argument go as I was actually bored with discussion of law.
I am not a lawyer, not do I hold an interest in law.
However, if you really wish to push that question, I need to know something.
Inherent in your insistance that the DA does not prosecute cases that are based upon a constitutional violation would be a belief that the crime prosecuted is not, in fact, a constitutional violation.
Is it really your contention that a crime is not at its core a constitutional violation?

I may not know much legalese. But when someone takes a post of mine, changes the words and alters the meaning, then decries my ignorance for the new and nonsensical meaning. It says more about the attacker then it does my knowledge of law.

 

[pnewton]

It is an unfair question. None of my morality is dictated by legalese.

I wonder why you trying to turn this into a discussion of my personal morality? Maybe because your legal arguments are totally baseless.

I agree that it is unfair to question your morality in the matter. However, since this is a Catholic website, morality is always a discussion point.

 

[Listen_to_This]

Inherent in your insistance that the DA does not prosecute cases that are based upon a constitutional violation would be a belief that the crime prosecuted is not, in fact, a constitutional violation.
Is it really your contention that a crime is not at its core a constitutional violation?

Yes, a crime is not, at its core, a constitutional violation. A crime is “a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties.”

dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=399

Is it really your contention that a crime is, at its core, a constitutional violation? Where does the constitution mention theft, battery, rape, drug possession, burglary, child abuse, etc.

How are any of these crimes constitutional violations?

I may not know much legalese. But when someone takes a post of mine, changes the words and alters the meaning, then decries my ignorance for the new and nonsensical meaning. It says more about the attacker then it does my knowledge of law.

I did not change your word or alter your meaning. You said a district attorney should prosecute alleged violation of the 4th amendment.

 

[wabrams]

The metal detectors, prior to the TSA, were usually operated by civilians, often contracted by the Airlines, and without law enforcement authority.

No due process applies, no need for warrants, because when the airline requires it, if you refuse the search, they can simply refund the ticket and refuse service.

When an employee-agent of the government does so, however, that is a whole different color of authority.

1. Due process is not an issue.
2. Courts have repeatedly said warrants are not necessary for administrative searches in airports.
3. Courts also repeatedly held that the government was sufficiently implicate in the searches that were conducted by airline employees to required that the searches were conducted in compliance with the 4th amendment.

Aramis is on to something. All the case law you have prevented ListenToThis was pre-9/11 IIRC. During those times it was private citizens (security guards) screening private citizens (travelers) at the behest of another group of private citizens (the airlines). You now have a Federal Government agency taking over the role and greatly expanding the intrusiveness of the search upon private citizens (travelers).
Look at your third point: yes the gov’t could do the same security the private security did before. But they aren’t doing that anymore; again, they have gone well past that.

 

[vz71]

A crime is “a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties.”

Then burglary is not a crime.
There is no injury at all, just theft of material goods.

Your definition fails, try again.

 

[vz71]

I did not change your word or alter your meaning. You said a district attorney should prosecute alleged violation of the 4th amendment.

Yes, you did.
Here is the post, in proper context.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

If we need some kind of court opinion to show us that the 4th amendment applies, then it stands to reason that court opinion likewise had to have an opinion, and the one before that, and the one before that, etc…

The amendment must come first, court opinions on it come later.

The supreme court does not sit on cases where an amendment may be applied and decide if it is constitutional. It looks at cases where an interpretation has been made and applied and decides if it is constitutional.

Rather then asking for some court opinion on the matter to lend authority to the 4th amendment outcry, we should be pushing the DA for prosecution based upon that and see where the court goes with it.

As is clearly obvious, I am not asking that the DA prosecute 4th amendment violations, as you claim.
I am asking they base a case upon it and see where it goes.

Having let you run several pages based upon misquoting and misrepresenting what I had said, I believe I am due an apology.

 

[Listen_to_This]

Yes, you did.
Here is the post, in proper context.

As is clearly obvious, I am not asking that the DA prosecute 4th amendment violations, as you claim.
I am asking they base a case upon it and see where it goes.

Having let you run several pages based upon misquoting and misrepresenting what I had said, I believe I am due an apology.

All District attorneys do is prosecute crimes. That is their job. How about you answer my questions since I answered all of yours.

Edit: Definition of a district attorney:
“District Attorney (D.A.) n. an elected official of a county or a designated district with the responsibility for prosecuting crimes. The duties include managing the prosecutor’s office, investigating alleged crimes in cooperation with law enforcement, and filing criminal charges or bringing evidence before the Grand Jury that may lead to an indictment for a crime. In some states a District Attorney is officially entitled County Attorney or State’s Attorney. United States Attorneys are also called Federal District Attorneys and are prosecutors for districts (there are several in larger states) within the Department of Justice, are appointed by the President and serve at his/her pleasure.”

emphasis added.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/district+attorney

Wikipedia entry of district attorneys:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_attorney

“In many jurisdictions in the United States, a District Attorney (DA) is an elected or appointed government official who represents the government in the prosecution of criminal offenses.”
Is it really your contention that a crime is, at its core, a constitutional violation? Where does the constitution mention theft, battery, rape, drug possession, burglary, child abuse, etc.

How are any of these crimes constitutional violations?

 

[Listen_to_This]

Aramis is on to something. All the case law you have prevented ListenToThis was pre-9/11 IIRC. During those times it was private citizens (security guards) screening private citizens (travelers) at the behest of another group of private citizens (the airlines). You now have a Federal Government agency taking over the role and greatly expanding the intrusiveness of the search upon private citizens (travelers).
Look at your third point: yes the gov’t could do the same security the private security did before. But they aren’t doing that anymore; again, they have gone well past that.

Marquez was post-9/11 and involved TSA actions. And the court applied full 4th amendment analysis to the earlier cases.

 

[vz71]

All District attorneys do is prosecute crimes. That is their job. How about you answer my questions since I answered all of yours.

Is it really your contention that a crime is, at its core, a constitutional violation? Where does the constitution mention theft, battery, rape, drug possession, burglary, child abuse, etc.

How are any of these crimes constitutional violations?

How about that apology.
You have been misrepresenting me for several pages.

 

[vz71]

All District attorneys do is prosecute crimes.

They can base their case on anything they want.

 

[ProVobis]

No they should be fired that’s the problem with government workers they’re a lot like public school teachers it’s almost impossible to fire them in this country.

I agree in a way. The airlines should bear the responsibility of safety, not the taxpayers.

 

[Listen_to_This]

How about that apology.
You have been misrepresenting me for several pages.

The only cases that district attorneys bring are criminal prosecutions. You said a district attorney should a case based on alleged constitutional violation. The case would have to a criminal prosecution because that is the type of case a district attorney brings.

If you didn’t understand that they only case a district attorney brings are criminal prosecutions, then I am sorry I assumed you understood the duties of a district attorney.

Now will you answer my questions?

Is it really your contention that a crime is, at its core, a constitutional violation? Where does the constitution mention theft, battery, rape, drug possession, burglary, child abuse, etc.

How are any of these crimes constitutional violations?

 

[wabrams]

Marquez was post-9/11 and involved TSA actions. And the court applied full 4th amendment analysis to the earlier cases.

True, but were the more invasive pat-downs and x-ray body scanners being used at the time, or were they still using metal detectors and basic pat downs?

 

[Listen_to_This]

They can base their case on anything they want.

Do you have some sort of authority for view?

 

[Listen_to_This]

Then burglary is not a crime.
There is no injury at all, just theft of material goods.

Your definition fails, try again.

Having someone take your possessions is an injury. Injuries are not just physical.

Definition: A comprehensive term for any wrong or harm done by one individual to another individual’s body, rights, reputation, or property. Any interference with an individual’s legally protected interest.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/injury